JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The employer, a Co-operative Society, registered under the provisions of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, has challenged the award of the labour court, Ghaziabad, dated 8th January, 1997 in Adjudication Case No. 19 of 1993.
2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication to the labour court :
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk viuh efgyk Jfed Jherh lq/kk xqIrk iRuh Jh ,l- ds- xqIrk in DydZ&VkbfiLV dks fnukad 1-1-1989 ls dk;Z ls i`[email protected] fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ughaa rks lEcfU/kr efgyk Jfed D;k [email protected]"k fjyhQ ikus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \**
3. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced the evidence. The workman concerned has set up the case that she has been working with the employer with effect from 16th November, 1984 till 30th June, 1985 and thereafter from 25th August, 1987 till 31st December, 1988 as Typist and her services were terminated without assigning any reason on 1st January, 1989. No enquiry, whatsoever, has been conducted nor the provisions of retrenchment has been complied with. As against this, the employer have set up the case that the workman concerned was employed with effect from 1st August, 1989 till 16th September, 1989 and she had been paid wages and bonus, etc. Therefore, on 1st January, 1989, there was no cause of action arose to the workman concerned and this reference is bad. The employer has further taken up the case that the workman concerned was not in continuous service and, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 2 (g) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, she is not entitled for any relief from the labour court.
4. Both the parties have adduced their respective evidence and the labour court has framed the following additional issues :
(1) Whether the Additional Labour Commissioner is entitled to make reference or not?
(2) Whether the dispute referred to the labour court under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is covered within the definition of Industrial Disputes or not?
(3) Whether the labour court is competent to hear and decide the dispute?
(4) Whether the necessary parties have not been impleaded in the present dispute? If so what is its effect?
(5) To what relief, the workman is entitled and whether the workman is gainfully employed?
5. The labour court has decided the additional issue No. 1 by the order dated 6th November, 1993, on merits in favour of the workman and against the employer. The employer have filed review application which has been rejected by the labour court on 24th December, 1993. With regard to additional issue No. 2, the labour court has found that the reference is in accordance with the provisions of Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus, this issue was decided against the employer and in favour of the workman. Additional issue No. 3 was also decided against the employer and in favour of the workman. Regarding the issue No. 3, the labour court held that it is competent to answer the reference. With regard to additional issue No. 4, the labour court found that all the necessary parties have been impleaded. It has not been pointed out as to which party has to be impleaded and this issue was decided against the employer. With regard to the reference made to the labour court, the labour court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record have found that it is not in dispute that the workman concerned has worked for 240 days in preceding calendar year and her services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. In this view of the matter, the labour court after considering the material evidence on record has arrived at the conclusion that the termination of the services of the workman concerned without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is illegal and unjustified and directed reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service and full back wages.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the finding recorded by the labour court on the ground that the services of the workman concerned are regulated by statutory Rules which provides the termination of services of the employees without any notice, if the employee concerned is not a confirmed employee.
8. Learned counsel for the workman concerned, on the other hand, has relied upon a number of decisions. One such decision is a decision of mine in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7133 of 1995, decided on 12th April, 2002, wherein in similar circumstance, the writ petition was dismissed and the award was upheld. Learned counsel for the workman concerned has further relied upon the decision in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Basantpur, Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr., 1993 (67) FLR 87, wherein this Court repelled this contention that since the service conditions of an employee like petitioner are regulated by statutory rules, the general principles of industrial law will not apply. This Court in the case in 1993 (67) FLR 87, repelled this contention considering the provisions of Section 135 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, in the following paragraphs :
"4. Relying upon Section 135 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act) Sri Pripathi submits that the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not apply to the petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society and the entire proceedings before the respondent No. 1 were without jurisdiction. Thus the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Section 135 of the Act reads as follows :
"135. Certain Acts not to apply to co-operative societies.--The provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), and the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. XVIII of 1947), shall not apply to Co-operative Societies."
5. It is true that Section 135 of the Act excludes the applicability of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Co-operative Societies, but this section has not been enforced as yet. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act envisages that the Act shall come into force from such date as the State Government, may by notification in the Gazette, appoint in this behalf. Proviso to Section 1 authorises the State Government to declare that any provisions to be specified in the declaration shall not come into force from such appointed date and in that event such provisions shall come into force from such date or dates as the State Government may similarly appoint in that behalf. By the Notification 9171-C/XII CA-1098-62, dated 30th December, 1967, published in Uttar Pradesh Government Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated 31st December, 1967, the State Government in exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, declared that all the provisions of the Act, excluding Section 135 thereof, shall come into force with effect from January 26, 1968. No notification appointing the date of enforcement of the provisions of Section 135 has been produced before the Court. The position, therefore, is that provisions of Section 135 have not been enforced as yet. For so long as the provisions of the said section are not enforced the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) and U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. XVIII of 1947) to the Co-operative Societies, including the petitioner, cannot be excluded. The submission in this behalf is only betraying utter ignorance of the legal position. It is, therefore, rejected.
6. To exclude the applicability of the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the activities of the petitioner in connection with which the respondent No. 2 was employed do not fall within the meaning of expression 'Industry' which is sine qua non for applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is to be noticed that the plea in this regard was never raised before the respondent No. 1. Apart from this, determination of the question as to whether the activities carried on by the petitioner fall within the expression 'industry' involves investigation and adjudication of disputed question of facts, and this Court, ordinarily, in exercise of its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not undertake such an exercise."
9. Learned counsel for the workman concerned has relied upon a decision in AIR 1978 SC 528, wherein it has been held that Co-operative Society is an industry. Learned counsel for the workman concerned has relied upon a number of decisions which need not be mentioned as the law with regard to the aforesaid matter is amply clear.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors., v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1997 (4) SCC 391, wherein the Apex Court has held that "question for consideration, therefore, is whether the petitioners can be said to have been retrenched within the meaning of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act? Every department of the Government cannot be treated to be an industry when the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of industry to that extent stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages". Needless to say that this case is different on the facts of the present case particularly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court that the Co-operative Society is an industry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the decision of this Court in 1994 (68) FLR 1185. In view of the facts of the present case as stated above since the finding has been recorded by the labour court that the workman concerned has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year, the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon two other decisions, which, in my opinion, do not apply to the present facts of the case. In view of the categorical finding arrived at by the labour court which is based on admitted facts, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declines to interfere with the impugned award.
11. In view of what has been said above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs.